* F1 needs one see the return of refuelling. I miss that strategic part of racing.* Women drivers need more opportunities to enter F1

Adding to these

* I miss Jordan and Minardi* Engine manufacturers should be limited to 2 teams. Teams should then be required to seek out suppliers. Would be difficult with these regs, but for the next regs* I like bonus points for Pole and fastest lap* F1 should race on an oval

Last edited by bradtheboywonder on Tue Sep 05, 2017 10:43 am, edited 1 time in total.

Drivers should be more important than the cars. The difference in the cars should be less than the difference between the drivers (this is a generalisation in that it would not be a rule, but an aim - to improve the racing).

This one is probably the most divisive of all, and marks the difference between the casual fan and the F1 Engineering geek. For the record, I agree with you... but this will not be a popular view on here, remember F1 is ABSOLUTELY NOT a drivers championship, if you want that go and watch something else!!!!

_________________Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."

He can't fail to be though can he? Everyone and his wife is lining up to say how INCREDIBLE he is, it's rather premature, how many times have we heard some new guy is going to be the next big thing only for it to not quite work out the way everyone thought. Did anyone have Rosberg picked as a WDC? I certainly didn't. Bottas too, but he's in a good position to become one...

_________________Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."

A good Hawaiian (Canadian bacon & pineapple) is not a bad option, but I personally prefer the Supreme... beef, pepperoni, mushroom, onion, green pepper and a generous topping of cheese. However, there are not many pizzas I don't enjoy... baring ones made with seafood toppings.

A good Hawaiian (Canadian bacon & pineapple) is not a bad option, but I personally prefer the Supreme... beef, pepperoni, mushroom, onion, green pepper and a generous topping of cheese. However, there are not many pizzas I don't enjoy... baring ones made with seafood toppings.

A good Hawaiian (Canadian bacon & pineapple) is not a bad option, but I personally prefer the Supreme... beef, pepperoni, mushroom, onion, green pepper and a generous topping of cheese. However, there are not many pizzas I don't enjoy... baring ones made with seafood toppings.

Drivers should be more important than the cars. The difference in the cars should be less than the difference between the drivers (this is a generalisation in that it would not be a rule, but an aim - to improve the racing).

This one is probably the most divisive of all, and marks the difference between the casual fan and the F1 Engineering geek. For the record, I agree with you... but this will not be a popular view on here, remember F1 is ABSOLUTELY NOT a drivers championship, if you want that go and watch something else!!!!

I have lost interest in F1. Not completely, but I certainly have reduced it's ranking considerable compared to using my time in other directions.It seems obvious to me that it is not a sport/entertainment that competes well with the other sports/entertainments that have been working to improve their appeal to the public.

In the past, the objective was to make cars faster and that was part of the appeal. That is no longer the case and a lot of people are in denial of that.

A good Hawaiian (Canadian bacon & pineapple) is not a bad option, but I personally prefer the Supreme... beef, pepperoni, mushroom, onion, green pepper and a generous topping of cheese. However, there are not many pizzas I don't enjoy... baring ones made with seafood toppings.

Is Canadian bacon even better than regular bacon?

Daniel thinks so...

_________________Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."

Here's a few of mine:- the driver who wins the WDC more often than not isn't the one who most deserves it- Massa is underrated- stats are meaningless, for two reasons: 1) results are largely machinery-dependant; Hamilton's stats for example - and this is an example, not a dig at Hamilton - are skewed by the fact he's had a race-winning car for all of his seasons and an utterly dominant one for three of them; 2) for some reasons stats always only include championship GP's, where up until the early '80s there were many non-championship GP's, in the fifties actually more than championship GP's and pre-1950 GP's are therefore also completely ignored. Many people think Nuvolari was the greatest driver ever but you won't find him in the stats . . .

Drivers should be more important than the cars. The difference in the cars should be less than the difference between the drivers (this is a generalisation in that it would not be a rule, but an aim - to improve the racing).

This one is probably the most divisive of all, and marks the difference between the casual fan and the F1 Engineering geek. For the record, I agree with you... but this will not be a popular view on here, remember F1 is ABSOLUTELY NOT a drivers championship, if you want that go and watch something else!!!!

I have lost interest in F1. Not completely, but I certainly have reduced it's ranking considerable compared to using my time in other directions.It seems obvious to me that it is not a sport/entertainment that competes well with the other sports/entertainments that have been working to improve their appeal to the public.

In the past, the objective was to make cars faster and that was part of the appeal. That is no longer the case and a lot of people are in denial of that.

Then I honeslty don't know what you ever liked about F1 in the first place. Because this year is a classic. Title fights this close between two all time greats in two different cars don't come around often. Throughout the Merc domination years this is what people cried out for. And now they've got it. Why can't they just enjoy it before it's gone again?

No they don't. Women have plenty opportunity; if we want women in F1 more girls need to start karting. Currently, of all the kids who start out karting, how many are girls? And how many kids who start karting end up in F1? Statistically, it's highly improbable a girl will ever end up in F1 as long as so few girls start out. I'm all for women in F1; I would have loved to see for example what someone like Danica could have done. She probably could have had the opportunity too, but she went for the big bucks in nascar.

Oh and BTW whoever said Claire W is a milf is definitely right; I also don't think that's an upopular opinion . . .

No they don't. Women have plenty opportunity; if we want women in F1 more girls need to start karting. Currently, of all the kids who start out karting, how many are girls? And how many kids who start karting end up in F1? Statistically, it's highly improbable a girl will ever end up in F1 as long as so few girls start out. I'm all for women in F1; I would have loved to see for example what someone like Danica could have done. She probably could have had the opportunity too, but she went for the big bucks in nascar.

Oh and BTW whoever said Claire W is a milf is definitely right; I also don't think that's an upopular opinion . . .

Glad to see I have an unpopular opinion. Meets the thread criteria.

I like what the V8 Supercars did in signing Simona De Silvestro to a 3 year contract. She was handed an opportunity to help promote and encourage women into Motorsport. She wasnt signed by a team until after she got a deal through Supercars.

You can also see they're using her for a lot of promos. They are Doing a good job getting her out there and developing a role model for women to potentially aspire to in Motorsport.

No they don't. Women have plenty opportunity; if we want women in F1 more girls need to start karting. Currently, of all the kids who start out karting, how many are girls? And how many kids who start karting end up in F1? Statistically, it's highly improbable a girl will ever end up in F1 as long as so few girls start out. I'm all for women in F1; I would have loved to see for example what someone like Danica could have done. She probably could have had the opportunity too, but she went for the big bucks in nascar.

Oh and BTW whoever said Claire W is a milf is definitely right; I also don't think that's an upopular opinion . . .

100% every word, including CW

_________________Never judge a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes. That way when you do judge him, you're a mile away, and you have his shoes.

No they don't. Women have plenty opportunity; if we want women in F1 more girls need to start karting. Currently, of all the kids who start out karting, how many are girls? And how many kids who start karting end up in F1? Statistically, it's highly improbable a girl will ever end up in F1 as long as so few girls start out. I'm all for women in F1; I would have loved to see for example what someone like Danica could have done. She probably could have had the opportunity too, but she went for the big bucks in nascar.

Oh and BTW whoever said Claire W is a milf is definitely right; I also don't think that's an upopular opinion . . .

* F1 needs one see the return of refuelling. I miss that strategic part of racing.* Women drivers need more opportunities to enter F1

Adding to these

* I miss Jordan and Minardi* Engine manufacturers should be limited to 2 teams. Teams should then be required to seek out suppliers. Would be difficult with these regs, but for the next regs* I like bonus points for Pole and fastest lap* F1 should race on an oval

I really do miss Minardi. They were a real pleasure to have about. They were there to have a race, no matter how far behind the winner, (who spent 100 times as much as them)

They were pure racers, not rich boys playing (well, yes, they were that too but..) and there for the SPORT.

No they don't. Women have plenty opportunity; if we want women in F1 more girls need to start karting. Currently, of all the kids who start out karting, how many are girls? And how many kids who start karting end up in F1? Statistically, it's highly improbable a girl will ever end up in F1 as long as so few girls start out. I'm all for women in F1; I would have loved to see for example what someone like Danica could have done. She probably could have had the opportunity too, but she went for the big bucks in nascar.

Oh and BTW whoever said Claire W is a milf is definitely right; I also don't think that's an upopular opinion . . .

100% every word, including CW

Charlie Whiting does it for you too? I thought I was the only one.

Well he is a dashing, well to do gent but he'd have to change the company he keeps if he think he'd have a chance with me.

* F1 needs one see the return of refuelling. I miss that strategic part of racing.* Women drivers need more opportunities to enter F1

Adding to these

* I miss Jordan and Minardi* Engine manufacturers should be limited to 2 teams. Teams should then be required to seek out suppliers. Would be difficult with these regs, but for the next regs* I like bonus points for Pole and fastest lap* F1 should race on an oval

I really do miss Minardi. They were a real pleasure to have about. They were there to have a race, no matter how far behind the winner, (who spent 100 times as much as them)

They were pure racers, not rich boys playing (well, yes, they were that too but..) and there for the SPORT.

Being somewhat older, I would say that I miss Osella team, which was kind of Minardi from 80's, perhaps even in worse position. Their first car for 1980, driven by Eddie Cheever was 100 kg heavier than other competitors. Still, at times Cheever was having a good race, like in Spain where he run as high as 4th.

I don't think that Schumacher was such a big choker at showdowns. In '98 it was his clutch that got stuck and "bit", hence sending him at the back of the grid for stalling. Hakkinen has backed this up too.

I also miss the Jordan team.

Having watched a '00 race, I have to say I miss the looks of them cars, so slick and "mean" looking.

I don't think that Schumacher was such a big choker at showdowns. In '98 it was his clutch that got stuck and "bit", hence sending him at the back of the grid for stalling. Hakkinen has backed this up too.

I also miss the Jordan team.

Having watched a '00 race, I have to say I miss the looks of them cars, so slick and "mean" looking.

So he had 5 championships that went down to the wire -

94 - He made a mistake under pressure from Hill and hit the barrier.

97 - Pressured into driving into the side of his competitor.

98 - Stalled on the grid.

03 - Had one of the worst races of his career. Made numerous mistakes and finished 8th in a car capable of the win.

06 - Drove a very strong but very unfortunate race. TBF his chance of winning the WDC was so slim I doubt he felt under much pressure.

So the four years where the outcome was in his hands he made significant mistakes. I would say the pressure definitely got to him.

I don't think that Schumacher was such a big choker at showdowns. In '98 it was his clutch that got stuck and "bit", hence sending him at the back of the grid for stalling. Hakkinen has backed this up too.

I also miss the Jordan team.

Having watched a '00 race, I have to say I miss the looks of them cars, so slick and "mean" looking.

So he had 5 championships that went down to the wire -

94 - He made a mistake under pressure from Hill and hit the barrier.

97 - Pressured into driving into the side of his competitor.

98 - Stalled on the grid.

03 - Had one of the worst races of his career. Made numerous mistakes and finished 8th in a car capable of the win.

06 - Drove a very strong but very unfortunate race. TBF his chance of winning the WDC was so slim I doubt he felt under much pressure.

So the four years where the outcome was in his hands he made significant mistakes. I would say the pressure definitely got to him.

94 and 97 granted, I'll be honest that I was only thinking of his Ferrari years!

98 it wasn't his mistake, it was a clutch issue. Now I don't know how true this is, it could well have been an excuse from Ferrari for losing the title, but it was documented at the time and Mika also talked about it.

03 I have mixed feelings on this. Remember that with a wet quali Kimi qualified 8th, MSc 14th, Ralf and Jarno last places. So the race started on the wrong foot for a lot of the regular front runners. He clipped Sato while misjudging an overtake; but he came back from dead last (replacing the front wing) to 8th, which makes it hardly a bad performance. Then Ralf rear-ended him, without costing him anything. Knowing that Williams was out of the race and that Kimi wouldn't win, he later cruised behind Da Matta to the title. Not his best race, but was it a choke?

06 he did nothing wrong the whole race. Arguably one of his finest performances.

Your last sentence is a bit misleading; if you count the years that the outcome was in his hands, then you'd have to count 2000 as well. So I would make it 2/3 not choking. Oh well

I don't think that Schumacher was such a big choker at showdowns. In '98 it was his clutch that got stuck and "bit", hence sending him at the back of the grid for stalling. Hakkinen has backed this up too.

I also miss the Jordan team.

Having watched a '00 race, I have to say I miss the looks of them cars, so slick and "mean" looking.

So he had 5 championships that went down to the wire -

94 - He made a mistake under pressure from Hill and hit the barrier.

97 - Pressured into driving into the side of his competitor.

98 - Stalled on the grid.

03 - Had one of the worst races of his career. Made numerous mistakes and finished 8th in a car capable of the win.

06 - Drove a very strong but very unfortunate race. TBF his chance of winning the WDC was so slim I doubt he felt under much pressure.

So the four years where the outcome was in his hands he made significant mistakes. I would say the pressure definitely got to him.

94 and 97 granted, I'll be honest that I was only thinking of his Ferrari years!

98 it wasn't his mistake, it was a clutch issue. Now I don't know how true this is, it could well have been an excuse from Ferrari for losing the title, but it was documented at the time and Mika also talked about it.

03 I have mixed feelings on this. Remember that with a wet quali Kimi qualified 8th, MSc 14th, Ralf and Jarno last places. So the race started on the wrong foot for a lot of the regular front runners. He clipped Sato while misjudging an overtake; but he came back from dead last (replacing the front wing) to 8th, which makes it hardly a bad performance. Then Ralf rear-ended him, without costing him anything. Knowing that Williams was out of the race and that Kimi wouldn't win, he later cruised behind Da Matta to the title. Not his best race, but was it a choke?

06 he did nothing wrong the whole race. Arguably one of his finest performances.

Your last sentence is a bit misleading; if you count the years that the outcome was in his hands, then you'd have to count 2000 as well. So I would make it 2/3 not choking. Oh well

I don't think that Schumacher was such a big choker at showdowns. In '98 it was his clutch that got stuck and "bit", hence sending him at the back of the grid for stalling. Hakkinen has backed this up too.

I also miss the Jordan team.

Having watched a '00 race, I have to say I miss the looks of them cars, so slick and "mean" looking.

So he had 5 championships that went down to the wire -

94 - He made a mistake under pressure from Hill and hit the barrier.

97 - Pressured into driving into the side of his competitor.

98 - Stalled on the grid.

03 - Had one of the worst races of his career. Made numerous mistakes and finished 8th in a car capable of the win.

06 - Drove a very strong but very unfortunate race. TBF his chance of winning the WDC was so slim I doubt he felt under much pressure.

So the four years where the outcome was in his hands he made significant mistakes. I would say the pressure definitely got to him.

94 and 97 granted, I'll be honest that I was only thinking of his Ferrari years!

98 it wasn't his mistake, it was a clutch issue. Now I don't know how true this is, it could well have been an excuse from Ferrari for losing the title, but it was documented at the time and Mika also talked about it.

03 I have mixed feelings on this. Remember that with a wet quali Kimi qualified 8th, MSc 14th, Ralf and Jarno last places. So the race started on the wrong foot for a lot of the regular front runners. He clipped Sato while misjudging an overtake; but he came back from dead last (replacing the front wing) to 8th, which makes it hardly a bad performance. Then Ralf rear-ended him, without costing him anything. Knowing that Williams was out of the race and that Kimi wouldn't win, he later cruised behind Da Matta to the title. Not his best race, but was it a choke?

06 he did nothing wrong the whole race. Arguably one of his finest performances.

Your last sentence is a bit misleading; if you count the years that the outcome was in his hands, then you'd have to count 2000 as well. So I would make it 2/3 not choking. Oh well

The sound of the McLararen-Honda ever since they joined F1 in 2015 have had by far the best sounding engine out of any of the others competing with them. I love the fact it sounds deeper and makes a rumbling sound when you lift off to brake for the corners. It is so much more obvious on this car than others. I also much prefer the V6 Hybrids to the V8s before this. I like their deeper sound.

Here's one that I expect to be genuinely unpopular, based on the noises I've been hearing lately:

Grid penalties don't bother me one bit.

I agree with this in a way. My view has been that it's not Formula 1 that looks ridiculous when Alonso has an 80-place grid penalty, it's Honda.

However I feel this component saving has gone a little too far and now we effectively see 'double punishments' for unreliability (i.e. a race retirement and then a subsequent grid drop) which I don't think is right.

My view has been that it's not Formula 1 that looks ridiculous when Alonso has an 80-place grid penalty, it's Honda.

That's exactly how I feel on the matter, and it always puzzles me when people say it's making 'a farce of Formula One' when Alonso or Vandoorne or Verstappen gets a huge penalty. It wouldn't happen if Honda or Renault did a perfect job, so why is it F1's problem? You don't see the Mercedes or Ferrari-engined cars ever taking more than a 5-place penalty, so I'd say the system is working as intended; it's penalizing Renault and Honda for making unreliable parts.

j man wrote:

However I feel this component saving has gone a little too far and now we effectively see 'double punishments' for unreliability (i.e. a race retirement and then a subsequent grid drop) which I don't think is right.

I do see your point on that. Maybe we could have something like a rule that states you don't suffer a grid penalty for a failure that resulted in a DNF, like we have with free gearbox changes now? That way if Max's power unit blows up in the race and costs him points, he doesn't get a penalty, but if they detect that it's going to and change it preemptively he does. Just a quick-fix thought.

* F1 needs one see the return of refuelling. I miss that strategic part of racing.* Women drivers need more opportunities to enter F1

Adding to these

* I miss Jordan and Minardi* Engine manufacturers should be limited to 2 teams. Teams should then be required to seek out suppliers. Would be difficult with these regs, but for the next regs* I like bonus points for Pole and fastest lap* F1 should race on an oval

I really do miss Minardi. They were a real pleasure to have about. They were there to have a race, no matter how far behind the winner, (who spent 100 times as much as them)

They were pure racers, not rich boys playing (well, yes, they were that too but..) and there for the SPORT.

Being somewhat older, I would say that I miss Osella team, which was kind of Minardi from 80's, perhaps even in worse position. Their first car for 1980, driven by Eddie Cheever was 100 kg heavier than other competitors. Still, at times Cheever was having a good race, like in Spain where he run as high as 4th.

Being even older still, I miss teams like Gordini which in a way were the original Minardi.Le sorcerer designed & built his own F1 cars including engine & chassis & was named le sorcerer because of the performance he managed to extract from the meagre budget he had. He even used his own son as a driver for a while which must be unique.

He also partook in sports car racing & I think some of his creations were beautiful.

_________________Champions are made from something they have deep inside of them - a desire, a dream, a vision. They have last-minute stamina, they have to be a little faster, they have the skill & the will but the will must be stronger than the skill. Muhammad Ali

Because if he was, it would throw the whole driver status dynamic out of whack.

Comparing drivers with long-term teammates is the most reliable way we have of seeing where two drivers stand.

For example, Alonso used to be less than a tenth behind Hamilton in qualifying, in 2007.Hamilton to Button, the gap used to be 2 to 3 tenths in qualifying, over 3 years. This would tell us it would be similar to that if Alonso was Button's teammate.

And from 2015 to 2016, that is indeed the gap Alonso had to Button.

Alonso dominated Massa speedwise from 2010 to 2013, so it was obvious the same would happen to Raikkonen. People hyped the partnership, but 2014 made it clear that Alonso dominated Raikkonen the same way he dominated Massa. Maybe even a little more, which is accurate, since Massa used to be a little quicker than Raikkonen in qualifying.

So, if we use this basis, and assume 2014 to be an accurate reflection of Ricciardo vs Vettel, then:

Ricciardo is even better than Alonso, because Alonso dominated Raikkonen in qualifying, while Vettel also has good speed over Raikkonen. So Alonso is only a little better than Vettel, speedwise.

Alonso's gap to Massa is similar to how Schumacher dominated Massa. Hence, Alonso and Schumacher are similar speedwise, with Ricciardo still a healthy chunk faster than both!

I could still have maybe digested it till this point, Ricciardo could well have been the fastest driver ever, it's not preposterous. He certainly did have excellent racecraft, speed, and consistency.(Although one sign that was an anomaly in the domination was rain. Whenever it rained, even in 2014, Vettel easily outpaced Ricciardo in qualifying and seemed faster. Verstappen seems faster than Ricciardo in the rain too.)

But then Verstappen comes along. And he has even greater racecraft, though granted he makes mistakes which I think will iron out with age, and he seems to be even faster than Ricciardo now, in every qualifying. That would make it ludicrious, that Verstappen is ages, ages better than Schumacher and Alonso in raw speed.

And I don't believe we such jumps of talent in F1, ever. The odds of Ricciardo and Verstappen BOTH being the fastest drivers ever by some margin, and ending up in the same era and same team, are really, really improbable.

So, I believe that because of issues in his motivation, not liking the cars, not working well with the tyres which used to be his specialty, and ultimately teammate pressure, Vettel underperformed in 2014.

But of course Ricciardo was better in 2014.

If I had to say what would happen between them when both are in good form, with a gun to my head? Vettel will beat Ricciardo by a smidgen in qualifying. The race would be very close, as Vettel might manage his tyres slightly better, while Ricciardo has the better racecraft. But they'll overall be very evenly matched, not domination like 2014.

It's like Raikkonen and Massa, 2007 and 2008, actually. Raikkonen was just slightly better in 2007. Due to low motivation, then some bad luck in races, losing the points lead, and car not suiting him, he fell a long way behind Massa. If we had only used 2008 as a comparison for Raikkonen and Massa, we'd not get an accurate picture. I believe similar things happened in 2014 between Vettel and Ricciardo. They would be, IMO, very, very similar, with differing strengths.

Because if he was, it would throw the whole driver status dynamic out of whack.

Comparing drivers with long-term teammates is the most reliable way we have of seeing where two drivers stand.

For example, Alonso used to be less than a tenth behind Hamilton in qualifying, in 2007.Hamilton to Button, the gap used to be 2 to 3 tenths in qualifying, over 3 years. This would tell us it would be similar to that if Alonso was Button's teammate.

And from 2015 to 2016, that is indeed the gap Alonso had to Button.

Alonso dominated Massa speedwise from 2010 to 2013, so it was obvious the same would happen to Raikkonen. People hyped the partnership, but 2014 made it clear that Alonso dominated Raikkonen the same way he dominated Massa. Maybe even a little more, which is accurate, since Massa used to be a little quicker than Raikkonen in qualifying.

So, if we use this basis, and assume 2014 to be an accurate reflection of Ricciardo vs Vettel, then:

Ricciardo is even better than Alonso, because Alonso dominated Raikkonen in qualifying, while Vettel also has good speed over Raikkonen. So Alonso is only a little better than Vettel, speedwise.

Alonso's gap to Massa is similar to how Schumacher dominated Massa. Hence, Alonso and Schumacher are similar speedwise, with Ricciardo still a healthy chunk faster than both!

I could still have maybe digested it till this point, Ricciardo could well have been the fastest driver ever, it's not preposterous. He certainly did have excellent racecraft, speed, and consistency.(Although one sign that was an anomaly in the domination was rain. Whenever it rained, even in 2014, Vettel easily outpaced Ricciardo in qualifying and seemed faster. Verstappen seems faster than Ricciardo in the rain too.)

But then Verstappen comes along. And he has even greater racecraft, though granted he makes mistakes which I think will iron out with age, and he seems to be even faster than Ricciardo now, in every qualifying. That would make it ludicrious, that Verstappen is ages, ages better than Schumacher and Alonso in raw speed.

And I don't believe we such jumps of talent in F1, ever. The odds of Ricciardo and Verstappen BOTH being the fastest drivers ever by some margin, and ending up in the same era and same team, are really, really improbable.

So, I believe that because of issues in his motivation, not liking the cars, not working well with the tyres which used to be his specialty, and ultimately teammate pressure, Vettel underperformed in 2014.

But of course Ricciardo was better in 2014.

If I had to say what would happen between them when both are in good form, with a gun to my head? Vettel will beat Ricciardo by a smidgen in qualifying. The race would be very close, as Vettel might manage his tyres slightly better, while Ricciardo has the better racecraft. But they'll overall be very evenly matched, not domination like 2014.

It's like Raikkonen and Massa, 2007 and 2008, actually. Raikkonen was just slightly better in 2007. Due to low motivation, then some bad luck in races, losing the points lead, and car not suiting him, he fell a long way behind Massa. If we had only used 2008 as a comparison for Raikkonen and Massa, we'd not get an accurate picture. I believe similar things happened in 2014 between Vettel and Ricciardo. They would be, IMO, very, very similar, with differing strengths.

Phew.

You clearly put a lot of thought into that, but I don't think it works that way. The A beat B and B beat C so A is better than C logic is flawed, because it assumes that drivers are performing at the same level all the time. There are many differences between years however, be it different teams, different in-team dynamics, different cars and regulations, drivers age and gain more experience . . . the list goes on.I do agree Vettel just had a bad year in 2014, for the various reasons you stated.

Because if he was, it would throw the whole driver status dynamic out of whack.

Comparing drivers with long-term teammates is the most reliable way we have of seeing where two drivers stand.

For example, Alonso used to be less than a tenth behind Hamilton in qualifying, in 2007.Hamilton to Button, the gap used to be 2 to 3 tenths in qualifying, over 3 years. This would tell us it would be similar to that if Alonso was Button's teammate.

And from 2015 to 2016, that is indeed the gap Alonso had to Button.

Alonso dominated Massa speedwise from 2010 to 2013, so it was obvious the same would happen to Raikkonen. People hyped the partnership, but 2014 made it clear that Alonso dominated Raikkonen the same way he dominated Massa. Maybe even a little more, which is accurate, since Massa used to be a little quicker than Raikkonen in qualifying.

So, if we use this basis, and assume 2014 to be an accurate reflection of Ricciardo vs Vettel, then:

Ricciardo is even better than Alonso, because Alonso dominated Raikkonen in qualifying, while Vettel also has good speed over Raikkonen. So Alonso is only a little better than Vettel, speedwise.

Alonso's gap to Massa is similar to how Schumacher dominated Massa. Hence, Alonso and Schumacher are similar speedwise, with Ricciardo still a healthy chunk faster than both!

I could still have maybe digested it till this point, Ricciardo could well have been the fastest driver ever, it's not preposterous. He certainly did have excellent racecraft, speed, and consistency.(Although one sign that was an anomaly in the domination was rain. Whenever it rained, even in 2014, Vettel easily outpaced Ricciardo in qualifying and seemed faster. Verstappen seems faster than Ricciardo in the rain too.)

But then Verstappen comes along. And he has even greater racecraft, though granted he makes mistakes which I think will iron out with age, and he seems to be even faster than Ricciardo now, in every qualifying. That would make it ludicrious, that Verstappen is ages, ages better than Schumacher and Alonso in raw speed.

And I don't believe we such jumps of talent in F1, ever. The odds of Ricciardo and Verstappen BOTH being the fastest drivers ever by some margin, and ending up in the same era and same team, are really, really improbable.

So, I believe that because of issues in his motivation, not liking the cars, not working well with the tyres which used to be his specialty, and ultimately teammate pressure, Vettel underperformed in 2014.

But of course Ricciardo was better in 2014.

If I had to say what would happen between them when both are in good form, with a gun to my head? Vettel will beat Ricciardo by a smidgen in qualifying. The race would be very close, as Vettel might manage his tyres slightly better, while Ricciardo has the better racecraft. But they'll overall be very evenly matched, not domination like 2014.

It's like Raikkonen and Massa, 2007 and 2008, actually. Raikkonen was just slightly better in 2007. Due to low motivation, then some bad luck in races, losing the points lead, and car not suiting him, he fell a long way behind Massa. If we had only used 2008 as a comparison for Raikkonen and Massa, we'd not get an accurate picture. I believe similar things happened in 2014 between Vettel and Ricciardo. They would be, IMO, very, very similar, with differing strengths.

Mansell was amazing. He may have come across as somewhat of an unpleasant and whining a person, but if I were to make a list of the 10 best overtakes I've seen in almost 40 years of watching F1, I think half of them would be Mansell's.

Because if he was, it would throw the whole driver status dynamic out of whack.

Comparing drivers with long-term teammates is the most reliable way we have of seeing where two drivers stand.

For example, Alonso used to be less than a tenth behind Hamilton in qualifying, in 2007.Hamilton to Button, the gap used to be 2 to 3 tenths in qualifying, over 3 years. This would tell us it would be similar to that if Alonso was Button's teammate.

And from 2015 to 2016, that is indeed the gap Alonso had to Button.

Alonso dominated Massa speedwise from 2010 to 2013, so it was obvious the same would happen to Raikkonen. People hyped the partnership, but 2014 made it clear that Alonso dominated Raikkonen the same way he dominated Massa. Maybe even a little more, which is accurate, since Massa used to be a little quicker than Raikkonen in qualifying.

So, if we use this basis, and assume 2014 to be an accurate reflection of Ricciardo vs Vettel, then:

Ricciardo is even better than Alonso, because Alonso dominated Raikkonen in qualifying, while Vettel also has good speed over Raikkonen. So Alonso is only a little better than Vettel, speedwise.

Alonso's gap to Massa is similar to how Schumacher dominated Massa. Hence, Alonso and Schumacher are similar speedwise, with Ricciardo still a healthy chunk faster than both!

I could still have maybe digested it till this point, Ricciardo could well have been the fastest driver ever, it's not preposterous. He certainly did have excellent racecraft, speed, and consistency.(Although one sign that was an anomaly in the domination was rain. Whenever it rained, even in 2014, Vettel easily outpaced Ricciardo in qualifying and seemed faster. Verstappen seems faster than Ricciardo in the rain too.)

But then Verstappen comes along. And he has even greater racecraft, though granted he makes mistakes which I think will iron out with age, and he seems to be even faster than Ricciardo now, in every qualifying. That would make it ludicrious, that Verstappen is ages, ages better than Schumacher and Alonso in raw speed.

And I don't believe we such jumps of talent in F1, ever. The odds of Ricciardo and Verstappen BOTH being the fastest drivers ever by some margin, and ending up in the same era and same team, are really, really improbable.

So, I believe that because of issues in his motivation, not liking the cars, not working well with the tyres which used to be his specialty, and ultimately teammate pressure, Vettel underperformed in 2014.

But of course Ricciardo was better in 2014.

If I had to say what would happen between them when both are in good form, with a gun to my head? Vettel will beat Ricciardo by a smidgen in qualifying. The race would be very close, as Vettel might manage his tyres slightly better, while Ricciardo has the better racecraft. But they'll overall be very evenly matched, not domination like 2014.

It's like Raikkonen and Massa, 2007 and 2008, actually. Raikkonen was just slightly better in 2007. Due to low motivation, then some bad luck in races, losing the points lead, and car not suiting him, he fell a long way behind Massa. If we had only used 2008 as a comparison for Raikkonen and Massa, we'd not get an accurate picture. I believe similar things happened in 2014 between Vettel and Ricciardo. They would be, IMO, very, very similar, with differing strengths.

Phew.

You clearly put a lot of thought into that, but I don't think it works that way. The A beat B and B beat C so A is better than C logic is flawed, because it assumes that drivers are performing at the same level all the time. There are many differences between years however, be it different teams, different in-team dynamics, different cars and regulations, drivers age and gain more experience . . . the list goes on.I do agree Vettel just had a bad year in 2014, for the various reasons you stated.

Comparing A vs B vs C when they've been teammates for long periods of time, or in stable conditions, has demonstrably worked. It's certainly worked better than any other system anyone else can think of.

Because if he was, it would throw the whole driver status dynamic out of whack.

Comparing drivers with long-term teammates is the most reliable way we have of seeing where two drivers stand.

For example, Alonso used to be less than a tenth behind Hamilton in qualifying, in 2007.Hamilton to Button, the gap used to be 2 to 3 tenths in qualifying, over 3 years. This would tell us it would be similar to that if Alonso was Button's teammate.

And from 2015 to 2016, that is indeed the gap Alonso had to Button.

Alonso dominated Massa speedwise from 2010 to 2013, so it was obvious the same would happen to Raikkonen. People hyped the partnership, but 2014 made it clear that Alonso dominated Raikkonen the same way he dominated Massa. Maybe even a little more, which is accurate, since Massa used to be a little quicker than Raikkonen in qualifying.

So, if we use this basis, and assume 2014 to be an accurate reflection of Ricciardo vs Vettel, then:

Ricciardo is even better than Alonso, because Alonso dominated Raikkonen in qualifying, while Vettel also has good speed over Raikkonen. So Alonso is only a little better than Vettel, speedwise.

Alonso's gap to Massa is similar to how Schumacher dominated Massa. Hence, Alonso and Schumacher are similar speedwise, with Ricciardo still a healthy chunk faster than both!

I could still have maybe digested it till this point, Ricciardo could well have been the fastest driver ever, it's not preposterous. He certainly did have excellent racecraft, speed, and consistency.(Although one sign that was an anomaly in the domination was rain. Whenever it rained, even in 2014, Vettel easily outpaced Ricciardo in qualifying and seemed faster. Verstappen seems faster than Ricciardo in the rain too.)

But then Verstappen comes along. And he has even greater racecraft, though granted he makes mistakes which I think will iron out with age, and he seems to be even faster than Ricciardo now, in every qualifying. That would make it ludicrious, that Verstappen is ages, ages better than Schumacher and Alonso in raw speed.

And I don't believe we such jumps of talent in F1, ever. The odds of Ricciardo and Verstappen BOTH being the fastest drivers ever by some margin, and ending up in the same era and same team, are really, really improbable.

So, I believe that because of issues in his motivation, not liking the cars, not working well with the tyres which used to be his specialty, and ultimately teammate pressure, Vettel underperformed in 2014.

But of course Ricciardo was better in 2014.

If I had to say what would happen between them when both are in good form, with a gun to my head? Vettel will beat Ricciardo by a smidgen in qualifying. The race would be very close, as Vettel might manage his tyres slightly better, while Ricciardo has the better racecraft. But they'll overall be very evenly matched, not domination like 2014.

It's like Raikkonen and Massa, 2007 and 2008, actually. Raikkonen was just slightly better in 2007. Due to low motivation, then some bad luck in races, losing the points lead, and car not suiting him, he fell a long way behind Massa. If we had only used 2008 as a comparison for Raikkonen and Massa, we'd not get an accurate picture. I believe similar things happened in 2014 between Vettel and Ricciardo. They would be, IMO, very, very similar, with differing strengths.

Phew.

You clearly put a lot of thought into that, but I don't think it works that way. The A beat B and B beat C so A is better than C logic is flawed, because it assumes that drivers are performing at the same level all the time. There are many differences between years however, be it different teams, different in-team dynamics, different cars and regulations, drivers age and gain more experience . . . the list goes on.I do agree Vettel just had a bad year in 2014, for the various reasons you stated.

Comparing A vs B vs C when they've been teammates for long periods of time, or in stable conditions, has demonstrably worked. It's certainly worked better than any other system anyone else can think of.

Once you factor out a drivers debut and retirement seasons then it is pretty accurate the vast majority of the time.

Mansell was amazing. He may have come across as somewhat of an unpleasant and whining a person, but if I were to make a list of the 10 best overtakes I've seen in almost 40 years of watching F1, I think half of them would be Mansell's.

On top of that, I really do not find his personality annoying at all, but that's another unpopular opinion.